2025-12-26 02:22:44

Whenever I want to help everyone understand why PTCG (Pokémon Trading Card Game) can outperform the market long-term, I always use NFTs as a reference.

To be honest, NFTs have already been tested by the market—this thing just hasn't come to life.

But because it failed, it becomes especially meaningful to study.

My approach using NFTs is not to say that Pokémon is like them; quite the opposite—Pokémon is what NFTs should truly become. The difference lies in one relying on real physical attributes and cultural accumulation, while the other is just a ledger on the chain. This comparison can explain many issues.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

YieldFarmRefugee

· 14h ago

This is a perfect point. NFTs are just not understanding the concept of tangible value. Bitcoin needs consensus, trading cards need genuine demand, and who wants your broken JPG for an NFT image? The core is still scarcity of supply combined with cultural accumulation. You simply can't play around with this NFT. Pokémon cards have been accumulated over decades, while NFTs cool off after three years. The gap is huge. To put it simply, on-chain ledgers can't deceive the market; ultimately, it comes down to the value of the physical assets.

View OriginalReply0

VirtualRichDream

· 14h ago

Relying on on-chain ledgers to win physical cards? Impossible, that NFT approach is just self-deception. --- So, NFT failure isn't unfair; it simply didn't grasp the core of collectible cards. --- That comparison is perfect—one has a tactile feel, the other is just digital. The difference is huge. --- Pokemon is truly a textbook-level operation; NFT can't learn from it. --- No wonder some people are still hyping NFT avatars. You really should read this article. --- Physical attributes combined with cultural accumulation are the real moat. This statement hits the point. --- NFT is just trying to take shortcuts, but ends up failing at everything. --- That makes sense—real things ultimately can't beat virtual ones; their destinies are different. --- I actually think NFTs still have a chance, as long as they can find a carrier like Pokemon. --- Why compare on-chain ledgers to physical cards? That's truly absurd.

View OriginalReply0

Whale_Whisperer

· 14h ago

Well said. NFT, at its core, is just illusory. In contrast, Pokémon at least has the tangible feel of the cards. Card culture has been accumulated for decades, a depth that NFTs can never replicate. Indeed, failures often carry the most educational value; it's worth analyzing them thoroughly. This guy clearly compares the two very insightfully—one relies on real assets, the other on code and ledgers, worlds apart. The problem with NFTs is right here—no physical anchor, all just air. Pokémon's strength lies in its solid cultural foundation, not just as a trading item. Exactly, NFTs are essentially fantasies lacking real-world support. No wonder PTCG remains stable; it's simply not competing on the same level.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 14h ago

This is the real comparison. NFT is dead, dead, and dead again, which instead highlights why Pokémon has been able to survive for so long. Hardware really can't compete with cultural accumulation.

View OriginalReply0